5 ms·

There is no such thing as "unencumbered by patents". Unless you have a technology that has already been tested thoroughly in the courts, which is the only way y

by wissler 14y ago

There is no such thing as "unencumbered by patents". Unless you have a technology that has already been tested thoroughly in the courts, which is the only way you can really determine whether something would be deemed to violate a patent or not, you simply can't know.

azakai 14y ago
Even if it was tested by the courts, you can appeal. And even after the appeal, you can appeal to a higher court, all the way to the Supreme. And even if was tested there, congress can pass a law that allows it. And even if that happens the Supreme court can strike down the law. And even if that happens, the public can mount a revolution and tear down the legal system. But, practically speaking, Opus has extremely good guarantees for being unencumbered, as much as is possible - the people working on it have given licenses to use it, and experts in the field have had a while to go over this stuff. Nothing is 100%, but this is as good as it gets.
- wissler 14y ago
  No matter how many times I'm downvoted, it's still not unencumbered. It's simply not in the nature of our patent system that something this complex can be unencumbered, unless it's with respect to an expired patent. I know my position causes a lot of cognitive dissonance with people, because it implies that the system is fundamentally unfair. Well, you can either take the red or the blue pill.
  - azakai 14y ago
    > No matter how many times I'm downvoted, it's still not unencumbered. Who said you were wrong? Quite the opposite, I strongly agreed with you - anything can be encumbered, and anything includes this. But the point is that Opus is as safe as you can possibly be from being patent encumbered. Everything is potentially encumbered, but there are things with higher or lower likelihoods. And there isn't any lower than Opus. If this is still too worrying for you to use, then you can't use any software at all.
  - shmerl 14y ago
    It is unencumbered, unless someone proves that it is encumbered.
    - wissler 14y ago
      It is unencumbered, unless there's a ton of money to be made by suing them. Same goes for Theora. When some deep-pocketed hardware manufacturer dares put one of these "unencumbered" algorithms into its hardware, then we will see. But I doubt they'll dare.
      - shmerl 14y ago
        Let them present their patents and try to sue, then you can say something is encumbered. Until now they engaged in empty threats and demagogy. They make tons of money by dominating the market, and when some potential completion shows up they try to prevent its adoption by spreading empty FUD. So it has nothing to do with patent encumbrance, it's just about their greed and thirst for market domination.
        wissler 14y ago
        They won't present their patents until there's a big haul of cash to be extracted. There won't be a big haul of cash to be extracted until some deep-pocketed manufacturer implements the algorithms. Which they likely won't do because they understand the same thing I do -- the system is rigged.
        shmerl 14y ago
        They won't present their patents until there's a big haul of cash to be extracted. Algorithms are already implemented and software which uses them is distributed broadly. Where are their court cases? Until those patent trolls (trolls as in spreading FUD) actually show what those patents are, they can't say that anything is encumbered. And they themselves have no idea about what they are. So whatever lies they spread now, even if it comes from Jobs, is simply irrelevant.
  - nullc 14y ago
    Come on, it's only 45kloc. Do you go around insisting every non-trivial piece of software on hacker news is encumbered? And in most those cases people were not making a special effort to avoid being effectively encumbered, while Opus was.
    - throwaway64 14y ago
      if its a non-trivial peice of software, it almost certainly is encumbered, don't forget about idiotic patents like 1 click, there are likely millions.
  - ZeroGravitas 14y ago
    I believe the system is fundamentally unfair, but also think that you are the one that's bought into their propaganda to the point that you're not thinking straight. Particularly as you naively think that an expired patent is enough to protect you from the system.
    - wissler 14y ago
      "Particularly as you naively think that an expired patent is enough to protect you from the system." Note that I said with respect to...
- wissler 14y ago
  Related: http://www.mpegla.com/main/pid/vp8/default.aspx http://www.mpegla.com/main/pid/vp8/default.aspx
  - wmf 14y ago
    No updates for 18 months. Did they find any patents?
    - wissler 14y ago
      The mere threat is enough to keep people from investing much in these "alternatives." E.g., Steve Jobs wrote: "All video codecs are covered by patents," Jobs wrote from his iPad. "A patent pool is being assembled to go after Theora and other 'open source' codecs now. Unfortunately, just because something is open source, it doesn’t mean or guarantee that it doesn’t infringe on others patents. An open standard is different from being royalty free or open source." You can bet that if Theora ever got traction and seriously interrupted MPLA's revenue stream, there would be suits. Before that time it'd be pointless for them to sue.
      - shmerl 14y ago
        That's the whole point. They have no proof to show, because really those codecs are not violating any patents. But they want to create fear to ban competition.
        yuhong 14y ago
        In fact: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2012/09/its-opus-it-rocks-and-now-its-an-audio-codec-standard/comment-page-1/#comment-1798071 https://hacks.mozilla.org/2012/09/its-opus-it-rocks-and-now-...
        shmerl 14y ago
        The citation above was about video codecs, FUD about which is spread by MPEG-LA, who never showed any patents as a proof. Opus is another story, since Qualcomm and Huawei listed supposedly violated patents, so Opus creators were able to review them and to confirm that those claims are bogus.
- hetman 14y ago
  Yeah. The public is going to mount a revolution over a music format. I don't think being contrary for its own sake is helpful here. The whole point of "tested by the courts" is that it's already gone through the appeals process. As in, you have the final decision you're going to get out of the courts.
  - nullc 14y ago
    The courts determine the applicability of single patents, or a single parties patents (e.g. in cases of misconduct). There is no legal process that can prove something non-infringing, unless you expect something to go to court millions of times. But this doesn't mean that something can't be designed in a way which avoids all known, and much unknown risk, and licensed in a way which makes frivolous attack less likely. The obsessives here somes forget that when we talk about comparing things what matters is the relative merits. The commercial codes are absolutely and uncertainly encumbered. And the commercial codec providers have generally had a poor track record of creating codecs unencumbered by third party rights (mostly because they don't make an effort to: they erroneously assume the regular royalties will satisfy all comers). Opus doesn't have these issues and even compared to most software an effort was made to avoid infringement, but nothing can escape the impossibility of absolute certainty under the current patent system.
shmerl 14y ago
It means to the best of authors' knowledge.
derleth 14y ago
> There is no such thing as "unencumbered by patents". When do the lawsuits over PNG begin?

by wissler 14y ago

azakai 14y ago

Even if it was tested by the courts, you can appeal. And even after the appeal, you can appeal to a higher court, all the way to the Supreme. And even if was tested there, congress can pass a law that allows it. And even if that happens the Supreme court can strike down the law. And even if that happens, the public can mount a revolution and tear down the legal system. But, practically speaking, Opus has extremely good guarantees for being unencumbered, as much as is possible - the people working on it have given licenses to use it, and experts in the field have had a while to go over this stuff. Nothing is 100%, but this is as good as it gets.

wissler 14y ago
No matter how many times I'm downvoted, it's still not unencumbered. It's simply not in the nature of our patent system that something this complex can be unencumbered, unless it's with respect to an expired patent. I know my position causes a lot of cognitive dissonance with people, because it implies that the system is fundamentally unfair. Well, you can either take the red or the blue pill.
- azakai 14y ago
  > No matter how many times I'm downvoted, it's still not unencumbered. Who said you were wrong? Quite the opposite, I strongly agreed with you - anything can be encumbered, and anything includes this. But the point is that Opus is as safe as you can possibly be from being patent encumbered. Everything is potentially encumbered, but there are things with higher or lower likelihoods. And there isn't any lower than Opus. If this is still too worrying for you to use, then you can't use any software at all.
- shmerl 14y ago
  It is unencumbered, unless someone proves that it is encumbered.
  - wissler 14y ago
    It is unencumbered, unless there's a ton of money to be made by suing them. Same goes for Theora. When some deep-pocketed hardware manufacturer dares put one of these "unencumbered" algorithms into its hardware, then we will see. But I doubt they'll dare.
    - shmerl 14y ago
      Let them present their patents and try to sue, then you can say something is encumbered. Until now they engaged in empty threats and demagogy. They make tons of money by dominating the market, and when some potential completion shows up they try to prevent its adoption by spreading empty FUD. So it has nothing to do with patent encumbrance, it's just about their greed and thirst for market domination.
      - wissler 14y ago
        They won't present their patents until there's a big haul of cash to be extracted. There won't be a big haul of cash to be extracted until some deep-pocketed manufacturer implements the algorithms. Which they likely won't do because they understand the same thing I do -- the system is rigged.
        shmerl 14y ago
        They won't present their patents until there's a big haul of cash to be extracted. Algorithms are already implemented and software which uses them is distributed broadly. Where are their court cases? Until those patent trolls (trolls as in spreading FUD) actually show what those patents are, they can't say that anything is encumbered. And they themselves have no idea about what they are. So whatever lies they spread now, even if it comes from Jobs, is simply irrelevant.
- nullc 14y ago
  Come on, it's only 45kloc. Do you go around insisting every non-trivial piece of software on hacker news is encumbered? And in most those cases people were not making a special effort to avoid being effectively encumbered, while Opus was.
  - throwaway64 14y ago
    if its a non-trivial peice of software, it almost certainly is encumbered, don't forget about idiotic patents like 1 click, there are likely millions.
- ZeroGravitas 14y ago
  I believe the system is fundamentally unfair, but also think that you are the one that's bought into their propaganda to the point that you're not thinking straight. Particularly as you naively think that an expired patent is enough to protect you from the system.
  - wissler 14y ago
    "Particularly as you naively think that an expired patent is enough to protect you from the system." Note that I said with respect to...
wissler 14y ago
Related: http://www.mpegla.com/main/pid/vp8/default.aspx http://www.mpegla.com/main/pid/vp8/default.aspx
- wmf 14y ago
  No updates for 18 months. Did they find any patents?
  - wissler 14y ago
    The mere threat is enough to keep people from investing much in these "alternatives." E.g., Steve Jobs wrote: "All video codecs are covered by patents," Jobs wrote from his iPad. "A patent pool is being assembled to go after Theora and other 'open source' codecs now. Unfortunately, just because something is open source, it doesn’t mean or guarantee that it doesn’t infringe on others patents. An open standard is different from being royalty free or open source." You can bet that if Theora ever got traction and seriously interrupted MPLA's revenue stream, there would be suits. Before that time it'd be pointless for them to sue.
    - shmerl 14y ago
      That's the whole point. They have no proof to show, because really those codecs are not violating any patents. But they want to create fear to ban competition.
      - yuhong 14y ago
        In fact: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2012/09/its-opus-it-rocks-and-now-its-an-audio-codec-standard/comment-page-1/#comment-1798071 https://hacks.mozilla.org/2012/09/its-opus-it-rocks-and-now-...
        shmerl 14y ago
        The citation above was about video codecs, FUD about which is spread by MPEG-LA, who never showed any patents as a proof. Opus is another story, since Qualcomm and Huawei listed supposedly violated patents, so Opus creators were able to review them and to confirm that those claims are bogus.
hetman 14y ago
Yeah. The public is going to mount a revolution over a music format. I don't think being contrary for its own sake is helpful here. The whole point of "tested by the courts" is that it's already gone through the appeals process. As in, you have the final decision you're going to get out of the courts.
- nullc 14y ago
  The courts determine the applicability of single patents, or a single parties patents (e.g. in cases of misconduct). There is no legal process that can prove something non-infringing, unless you expect something to go to court millions of times. But this doesn't mean that something can't be designed in a way which avoids all known, and much unknown risk, and licensed in a way which makes frivolous attack less likely. The obsessives here somes forget that when we talk about comparing things what matters is the relative merits. The commercial codes are absolutely and uncertainly encumbered. And the commercial codec providers have generally had a poor track record of creating codecs unencumbered by third party rights (mostly because they don't make an effort to: they erroneously assume the regular royalties will satisfy all comers). Opus doesn't have these issues and even compared to most software an effort was made to avoid infringement, but nothing can escape the impossibility of absolute certainty under the current patent system.

shmerl 14y ago

It means to the best of authors' knowledge.

derleth 14y ago

> There is no such thing as "unencumbered by patents". When do the lawsuits over PNG begin?